The High Court has dismissed Robert Bradshaw’s proceedings challenging a Tipperary County Registrar’s order appointing a receiver over grant payments he received from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
In a judgment delivered on 15 September 2020, Mr Justice Heslin refused leave to seek judicial review and dismissed the proceedings. He said that, even if the threshold for leave had been met, he would have refused the substantive relief sought.
The challenge concerned an order made on 25 March 2019, which made absolute a conditional order appointing solicitors as receiver by way of equitable execution over €13,417. The sum comprised a €9,215 judgment against Mr Bradshaw in favour of George Ross and €4,202 in taxed costs. Mr Ross’s claim had been upheld in the Circuit Court in 2014, and Mr Bradshaw’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2015.
The judgment said Mr Bradshaw received the motion papers on or about 7 March 2019, with a letter stating that his attendance at the 25 March hearing was “imperative” and recommending he seek legal advice. At 9.41am on the hearing date, he asked for a short adjournment, citing unforeseen circumstances but giving no further reason in the note. The County Registrar declined to adjourn and proceeded with the application, which the High Court described as uncontested.
In his judicial review proceedings, Mr Bradshaw gave two different explanations for his absence in separate affidavits. An earlier affidavit said he had to care for his mother, who had dementia. A later affidavit said he was in the High Court in Dublin. Mr Justice Heslin found the explanations mutually inconsistent and the affidavit evidence unreliable. He also said the applicant had not explained the discrepancy.
The court rejected the argument that the County Registrar lacked jurisdiction. It found that Mr Bradshaw had not appealed the order to a Circuit Court judge or applied to set it aside, despite those alternative remedies being available. The judgment said those routes were more appropriate, quicker and cheaper than judicial review.
The County Registrar had been named as a respondent, but was removed from the proceedings by order of the High Court, with the parties reserving their positions on costs. The court noted that no allegation of impropriety had been made against the County Registrar and that the proper opposing party was Mr Ross.
The dismissal concerns the judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not set out any later enforcement steps concerning the receiver’s appointment.